The Dilemma and Way Out of the Airdrop Ecosystem: From the Myth of Quick Riches to the Collapse of Trust

Airdrops, as a common marketing and user acquisition strategy in the cryptocurrency field, have been widely popular due to their "zero-cost" feature and wealth effect. However, recently, airdrops have gradually evolved from the "get-rich-quick myth" into a controversial battleground. The crisis of trust between project parties and users, imbalanced distribution mechanisms, rampant witch attacks, and the survival dilemmas of participants together constitute the complex situation of the current airdrop ecosystem. This article will use some recent controversial events as examples to explore the roots of distribution imbalance in the Web3 airdrop ecosystem, the chain reactions of user backlash, and the deep-seated contradictions behind the collapse of trust.

1. Imbalance in Project Allocation, Users from "Harvesting" to "Being Harvested"

1. Capital-led distribution logic

Taking a recently controversial project Airdrop as an example, its total Airdrop amount accounts for 15.8% of the initial supply, but testnet users only received 1.65%, while NFT holders accounted for 6.9%. Six major NFT holders divided $306 million tokens through a scarce series of NFTs, with the highest single address earning $55.77 million. Similar phenomena are also significant in other projects: 1.3% of addresses (, about 9203 addresses ), received 23.9% of the token share, with the lowest and highest rewards differing by 100 times. This "wealth gap" exposes two major issues with the Airdrop mechanism:

• Resources tilt towards capital: NFT holders are mostly early investors with substantial funding, while users of testnets contributing to on-chain activity have become "low-income households" (, as the average earnings of users on the testnet of a certain project are less than 1 dollar ).

• Rule black box: A certain project has not disclosed the airdrop algorithm dashboard, and another project has been questioned for allocating tokens to NFT holders who did not participate in the ecosystem, creating ambiguity that breeds "mouse warehouse" disputes.

2. Systematic Devaluation of Interactive Value

Traditional airdrops focus on interaction behaviors such as trading frequency and cross-chain interactions, but some projects are shifting towards "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core metrics: providing liquidity to DEX can earn double rewards, and users holding high-risk tokens or NFTs enjoy multiplier rewards. This shift, while suppressing witch attacks, leads to the disincentivization of ordinary users, creating a vicious cycle of "the higher the capital threshold, the greater the returns."

2. Users from "Participating in the Carnival" to "Trust Collapse"

1. Expectations not met and liquidity trap

• Yield Inversion: Participants in a certain project invested millions into a testnet address and only received a thousand tokens worth about $10,000, while users with pre-deposits were forced to lock their funds for three months, with early redemption incurring a 2% loss, being sarcastically dubbed "reverse yield".

• Sell-off wave spreads: only 19.3% of the tokens are still held in a project's airdrop address, with 80% sold off, causing a sharp decline in mainnet activity; cross-chain trading volume in another ecosystem dropped sharply by 75% after the airdrop, highlighting that airdrops have become a "one-time traffic tool".

( 2. The Spread of Trust Rift

• Double standards: Early users of a certain project were deprived of qualifications for not participating in the new version's interactions, while partners received 0.5% of tokens ) worth 20 million USD ###, far exceeding their public fundraising amount.

• The bankruptcy of technological idealism: Despite the introduction of innovative mechanisms and dual-token models, distribution controversies reveal that if the economic model deviates from fairness, technological innovation may instead become a "fig leaf" for centralized control.

( 3. The "collateral damage" cost of anti-witch measures

A certain project has banned over 1 million addresses through community reports, but mistakenly judged a large number of real users ), such as those with similar domain naming patterns ###; the reputation system attempts to balance security and fairness, but the biometrics verification and KYC have sparked privacy controversies, falling into the "three dilemmas of decentralized identity".

3. The Survival Dilemma of Participants

With the evolution of the Web3 Airdrop ecosystem, the survival environment for participants (, who obtain token rewards by participating in multiple project airdrops, is becoming increasingly severe. The once low-cost, high-return strategy is gradually failing, replaced by high costs, complex rules, and opaque operations from project parties.

) 1. "Small capital high-frequency interaction" becomes invalid and turns into "high-cost game"

Early participants maximized their airdrop gains by creating addresses in bulk and engaging in low-cost interactions such as small transactions and cross-chain operations (. However, with the adjustment of airdrop rules by project parties, a single address now requires a large amount of funds to be held long-term, with costs far exceeding the returns ). Some users' transaction fees even exceed the airdrop value ###. Taking a certain project as an example, it uses "fund retention time" and "risk asset allocation" as core indicators, requiring users to hold large amounts of funds long-term or provide liquidity. This significantly increases the cost for a single address, while the returns may not necessarily cover the investment.

( 2. The value of interactive assets depreciates

Traditional high-frequency interaction behaviors such as trading and cross-chain ) have seen a decrease in their weight in airdrops, making it difficult for ordinary users to achieve substantial gains through low-cost operations. In contrast, users with strong capital have obtained higher rewards by holding high-risk assets or NFTs, reducing the profit space for ordinary users.

4. The Way to Break the Deadlock: Reconstructing Consensus on Fairness

Currently, airdrops seem to be caught in a dilemma. The traditional airdrop model is often simplistic and brutal, using the number of addresses or the amount of tokens held as the sole criteria, neglecting the real contributions and long-term value of users to the project. This "money-spraying" type of airdrop not only fails to attract target users but also fosters speculative behavior, deviating from the original intention of project development.

To reconstruct fairness consensus, it is necessary to establish a more scientific and reasonable Airdrop mechanism:

1. From "quantity" to "quality": Incorporate users' contributions to the project into the Airdrop criteria, such as participating in community building, providing liquidity, completing specific tasks, etc., encouraging users to engage deeply in the project ecosystem rather than simply pursuing the number of addresses.

2. From "one-time" to "continuous": Combine Airdrop with the project's long-term development goals, for example, by providing dynamic rewards based on user holding time, participation in governance, etc., to incentivize users to grow together with the project.

3. From "Centralization" to "Decentralization": Utilize blockchain technology to establish a transparent and public Airdrop mechanism, for example, by automatically executing Airdrop rules through smart contracts to avoid human manipulation and enhance user trust.

Reconstructing fairness consensus, project parties need to be open and transparent in co-governance with community users, for example:

• Algorithm Audit: Public Airdrop parameters, introducing third-party audit to verify the rationality of the rules.

• Community Governance: Attempt to publicly disclose anti-witch standards in advance and open community discussions, with the possibility of introducing a voting mechanism in the future to allow users to participate in rule design.

• Gradient distribution: Rewards are dynamically adjusted based on staking duration and contribution, limiting whale monopolization; it can increase the weight for small, high-frequency users and reduce the asset threshold ratio.

• Long-term value binding: Link airdrops to governance rights, requiring users to continuously participate in voting to unlock benefits, thereby suppressing short-term selling.

• Technology empowers fair verification: By utilizing multi-dimensional identity verification through social accounts and on-chain behavior, the cost of witch attacks is increased; exploring zero-knowledge proof technology to verify real identities while protecting privacy.

Airdrop is not a panacea and cannot guarantee the success of a project. However, by reconstructing the consensus of fairness, an airdrop can become a bridge connecting project parties and users, attracting users who truly recognize the value of the project, and jointly promoting the prosperous development of the on-chain ecosystem.

Conclusion

Airdrop should not be merely a game of wealth transfer. Recent controversies reveal the core contradictions of Web3 airdrop mechanisms: project parties pursue cold start efficiency, users crave fair returns, while capital seeks arbitrage opportunities. When airdrops become alienated into "exit channels" or "traffic bait," the collapse of trust and user flight will become inevitable. In the future, only through transparent rules, community governance, and technological iteration can airdrops return to the essence of "contributor first," thereby reshaping the trust foundation of the Web3 ecosystem—allowing value creators to share in the value is the ultimate answer to the spirit of decentralization.